IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the validity of registered sale deeds based on statutory presumptions, confirming the plaintiffs' title and possession over the property despite the defendants' claims of forgery.

JUDGMENT :

V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J.

Defendants in the suit preferred this Appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.). Respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the suit. Appellants impugn the judgment dated 22.04.2016 of learned Senior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram in O.S.No.26 of 2012.

2. Sri Vijay Ashrith, the learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 6, submitted arguments.

3. The property in dispute is Ac.17.73 cents of land in Bathalapalli Revenue Village of Dharmavaram of Anantapur District. This land originally belonged to Sri B.Peddanna. He died intestate and his property was succeeded by his two sons by name Sri Pedda Sangappa and Sri Chinna Sangappa. Sri Pedda Sangappa died unmarried and issueless and died intestate. Sri Chinna Sangappa also died survived by his wife Venkatamma and a son by name Sri B. Nagabhushanam. Smt. Venkatamma executed a registered gift deed dated 23.09.2011 in favor of her son Nagabhushanam as per Ex.B.1 and thus, gifted the plaint schedule property to him. Within days thereafter, the donee Sri Nagabhushanam executed a registered sale deed dated 29.09.2011 as per Ex.B.2 in favour of Sri K. Chandrayudu and Sri K. Chennakesavulu. It is these transactions that gave rise to the controversy. Therefore, showing the mother and son as defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 and the two purchasers as defendant No.3 and defendant No.4, the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.26 of 2012 stating that they owned and possessed the property and their title is in cloud and therefore they prayed for declaration of their right and title over the plaint schedule property and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment and for costs and such other reliefs. The essence of the plaintis that Sri Pedda Sangappa and Sri Chinna Sangappa sold out Ac.4.00 cents of the plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 09.06.1967 as per the original of Ex.A.3. Subsequently Sri Chinna Sangappa died survived by his wife/defendant No.1 and a minor son/defendant No.2. Sri Pedda Sangappa and defendant No.1 for herself and his natural guardian of defendant No.2 sold out the remaining extent of Ac.13.73 cents under a registered sale deed dated 27.03.1978 as per Ex.A.4. Plaint further refers to the relationship among plaintiffs and the purchasers under those documents and they state that by 27.03.1978 the plaint schedule property was no more with Sri Pedda Sangappa and Sri Chinna Sangappa and their families and yet by creating Ex.A.5-gift deed and Ex.A.6-sale deed they wanted to grab the property and that forced them to file the suit.

4. Defendants contested stating that Exs.A.3 and A.4-sale deeds are forged and fabricated. It is further contested that by the time of Ex.A.4-sale deed dated 27.03.1978 defendant No.2 was a minor so also plaintiff No.4-Sri P. Mallikarjuna who purchased the property was also a minor and sought dismissal of the suit.

5. In the context of the above rival contentions, the trial Court settled the following issues :

1. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of their right over the plaint schedule property?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

4. Whether the registered sale deeds, dt. 9.6.1967 and 27.3.1978 are true, valid and acted upon and binding on the parties to the suit?

5. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiffs entitled for?

6. At the trial, there was evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.16 and DWs.1 to 3 and Exs.B.1 to B.7.

7. On considering the material on record and the contentions raised on both sides, learned trial Court agreed with the case of plaintiffs and found no merit in the contentions raised by the defendants and held that the dispute raised by the defendants with reference to Exs.A.3 and A.4–sale